Steve Green wrote: > The use of hidden headings for navigation is of benefit to anyone > whose user agent does not support CSS, not just screen reader users. > We are seeing an increasing number of sites built that way and there > isn't a downside that I can think of so perhaps it should become > standard practice.
Steve, Is this based on your user-testing feedback (no downside)? My only concern is that we're hiding the heading via CSS for the majority of "mainstream" users, yet leaving it in for "the others" - I find this hard to accept. This segregation feels like a downside to me... Who here really has a problem understanding the following: SUPER-DUPER WEB SITE * Home * About this Site * Frequently Asked Questions * Contact Us * Site Map ...? I suggest that even the newest beginner, sighted or otherwise, will quickly and easily grasp both the concept and the function of that list - it is, after all, the foundation of the web itself - click on those link-words and that's where you go. Screen readers in particular will announce each as a link, whereas un-styled sites/user-agents will also indicate that they are links (blue underline, etc.). Do we really need to hit them over the head harder than that? As I was thinking about this, it occurred to me that one person who might also have some insight into this would be Jonathan Chetwynd of Peepo (http://www.peepo.com/), who has done some extensive and valuable work with Downs Syndrome users, and has a very clear grasp of users with severely cognitive impairments. Yet a check of his site (which is essentially a list of navigation links) shows that he has not bothered announcing that his list of navigation links is a list of navigation links. (Even just typing that out makes it seem kind of redundant). To be sure, a consistent placement and treatment of site navigation on each site is important, perhaps even critical. As Roger's OzWai presentation[1] alluded to however, even here the "location" of the primary navigation block was less critical than the consistency - that said it also left me with the feeling that all things being equal, newer, less experienced users showed a slight preference for site navigation at the "top" of the document. (And Roger's testing panel was very small). With this in mind, and convention being what it is, it would seem (to me) that for the majority of users, the initial list of links at the top of any page are used for navigation - we don't need to keep telling them that (after all, if we include it on the first page, it will be on *every* page, and I'm sure your non-sighted userbase have comments about overt verbosity...) I think at this time we are still very much in the realm of *opinion*, and I respect that many in the field of web accessibility and web standards are well meaning, well versed in the "issues", and want to do everything they can to improve and maximize the user-experience for all; but I also honestly think we need imperial data and proof that this *is* the best practice before we start floating it as such - I for one remain skeptical. JF [1] If you missed the original link: http://www.usability.com.au/resources/ozewai2005/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
